SG terrain suitable for MBT?
-
The width limit can be for many reasons. But mostly to do with transport of the vehicle by land (eg trailer or some countries, by rail), by sea or air.
Most bridges that can take the 50 ton weight of an MBT will be wide enough. When there's bridging problems, they should be identified in advance by recce or advance party and engineers will be there to solve the problem.
There was a report, dunnno true or not, that the Stryker - or a variant of the Stryker - was too heavy to be airlifted by C-130 to Iraq. So the US had to fly them over on C-47.
Unfortunately, SAF's biggest transport to date is the C-130, and we only have a few of them according to one website. So, yeah... our overseas airlift capability got limit. -
Damn we should get 4 C-17A man
-
Again I say, one major contribution to the width limit is because of the plantation. Why? Cos plantation soil is firm enough to support armor operations due to the palm trees that are rooted there, holding the soil together. If there is a place where heavy armored vehicles can operate and manuever quickly in peninsular malaysia, its in the plantations.Originally posted by moca:The width limit can be for many reasons. But mostly to do with transport of the vehicle by land (eg trailer or some countries, by rail), by sea or air.
Most bridges that can take the 50 ton weight of an MBT will be wide enough. When there's bridging problems, they should be identified in advance by recce or advance party and engineers will be there to solve the problem.
There was a report, dunnno true or not, that the Stryker - or a variant of the Stryker - was too heavy to be airlifted by C-130 to Iraq. So the US had to fly them over on C-47.
Unfortunately, SAF's biggest transport to date is the C-130, and we only have a few of them according to one website. So, yeah... our overseas airlift capability got limit.
We are not gonna transport our AMX-13s or BX by C-130. Cos we don't intend to deploy them anywhere else.
And the Stryker, last i heard, had to be STRIPPED down to fit into the aircraft anways. Which means, after landing, they still have fix in all the externals before its combat ready. That was one of the main arguement the "pro-heavy" US Tankees threw up. They felt that M1A1s could roll off the C-5s and be battle ready as soon as the MGs r mounted up, tank fueld, and ammo loaded. -
Having LT etc is due to the terrain which I hv already explained.
For the 3m width & weight 30 tons standard,I believe is due to our class 30 bridging equipment that we have.
Those from CE may know more abt it.
I could be wrong but I doubt it, airlifting via C-130 is out of the qn, as for sealift, currently our biggest landing craft is the FCU ( I think the RPL is too old and too small a number to be significant) which has max loading of 18tons.
So that not it.
As for hovercraft???
ST Marines' ACV-1 could be it, but it is very large and certainly could handle more than 30 tons , so hovercraft angle also dun sound right. -
3m and 30 ton requirements may also be a protectionist thingy?
Don't know why so inflexible? Weight yes. But width......especially if it's just a few cms..... -
i don't suppose class 30 trackway restriction will be a problem for employing MBT in SAF. employment of class 30 are mainly for improvement of roadway where they cannot be passable by wheeled vehicles. as someone else has mentioned, tracked vehicles are designed for muddy terrain. they have much lower ground pressure than a wheel vehicle.
ever see a human bogged down in a muddy terrain but a much heavier tracked plant has no ptoblem traversing the place? bridges in our inventory also don't pose a problem. the majority of them are all MLC 60, probably capable of MLC 70 as caution crossing. bridge like FLB are designed in Germany for german army, on the pictures u see on Mindef's website, u can see a leopard crossing the bridge.
combat engineer vehicle & AVLB are all organic to armour units, they are all based on M60 MBT chassis. if our current asset can support them, i don't see why MBT cannot be deployed. its probably just a matter of politics and strategy.
i'm not a field engineer expert, so correct me if i'm wrong about the class 30. -
Weight limit of bridges is very much less than 50 ton. I am not talking about CE bridges or AVLBs.Originally posted by moca:snip
Most bridges that can take the 50 ton weight of an MBT will be wide enough. When there's bridging problems, they should be identified in advance by recce or advance party and engineers will be there to solve the problem.
snip
Unfortunately, SAF's biggest transport to date is the C-130, and we only have a few of them according to one website. So, yeah... our overseas airlift capability got limit.
Yes, we have limited airlift capability for armour. But I think that is by design. Don't want our neighbours to wet their underwear. Similary their offensive equipment are based far away from us. -
The CEV is a modified M60 if I'm not wrong. And M60 is a MBT albiet an old one. If we can operate CEVs & they don't get "stuck in mud", I think there's a pretty good chance actual MBTs wouldn't too. Unless of course you choose to get the heaviest MBT of all then MAYBE..................
-
We were talking of joining a user pool for C5 Galaxys recently.
-
For watever MBTs u have, u can always get AVLB(that handles its weight) for it.....Length might be problem....Unless u can wait for CE to come help....The whole point of having AVLB is to bridge gap ASAP without CE help n then quickly move on. Weight limit of road bridges is more of a concern i think when 30 ton requirement is set. If u can use road bridges that's already there u could move faster then having to set up your own...Just cross any u see... N if u r lighter there's more bridges u can use.... 3m width maybe ship cargo hold limit(not sure,any navy guys?), but maybe also road width....Your tanks too wide road becomes narrow,so all move in column.....Smaller width tanks can move in other formations.....Becomes nice target when in column....
-
Hi touchstone..Originally posted by touchstone_2000:Weight limit of bridges is very much less than 50 ton. I am not talking about CE bridges or AVLBs.
Yes, we have limited airlift capability for armour. But I think that is by design. Don't want our neighbours to wet their underwear. Similary their offensive equipment are based far away from us.
i believe you are talking out the signs that says that the flyover is only for class 5 veh of 42 tonnes or less... well, when we cannot use that bridge, we'll build one beside it.. nothing new for the bridging ppl, they can even build on a broken bridge..
unlike US where they need long distance power projection, in our context, SAF is unlikely required to project a force that far ahead. isn't it wastin more time to airlift the force than to drive straight there.. -
Not really a huge problem. I was from CE, and seriously speaking. The CL30 trackway theoretically can be deployed to handle wider vehicles as well. But yes, the prev bridges were limited in terms of width. Still, those floating bridges we have are not meant to be "permanent." Finally, its still the big wide barges does the bulk of the movement.Originally posted by gary1910:Having LT etc is due to the terrain which I hv already explained.
For the 3m width & weight 30 tons standard,I believe is due to our class 30 bridging equipment that we have.
Those from CE may know more abt it.
I could be wrong but I doubt it, airlifting via C-130 is out of the qn, as for sealift, currently our biggest landing craft is the FCU ( I think the RPL is too old and too small a number to be significant) which has max loading of 18tons.
So that not it.
As for hovercraft???
ST Marines' ACV-1 could be it, but it is very large and certainly could handle more than 30 tons , so hovercraft angle also dun sound right.
However, like one of the forumites mentioned, the trackways are for wheelies. I remember we used them by the shore when deploying pontoons and tugboats. If not, the stupid 7-tonne might just slip into the water due to the muddy shore.
I've never been in armor, but I was a frequent visitor to S.Gedong. I've never heard of my friends in armor talking about trying to shove the Bx in a -130 before. However, i did kinda remember seeing some Bx like vehicle roll out of the -130 bay a long time ago. Can't remember if it was WITH or WITHOUT the turret. -
With all due respects, again, please reveal your sources. Otherwise it's hard to find this credible.Originally posted by Shotgun:Again I say, one major contribution to the width limit is because of the plantation.
And as I have shown you earlier, the width difference between AMX13 and Centurion is a mere 60cm. That's less than the length of an M-16. Are rubber plantations too exactling for this small difference?
When you say "we" I suppose you mean the SAF. And who are we (not leaders in SAF) to say that SAF will or will not?Originally posted by Shotgun:We are not gonna transport our AMX-13s or BX by C-130. Cos we don't intend to deploy them anywhere else.
So maybe the C-130 theory is out. But there are still a big number of other reasons for a 3m limit like someone mentioned our bridging equipment, ships, or even our wheeled trailer tank transporters.
But then again, we do not know in what context this 3m/30ton specification is for.
As there is very clear evidence we already have the Centurion, and someone reminded us of our M-60 CEV and AVLB, we do, in effect, have vehicles that do not comply to this 3m/30ton specification. Perhaps this spec doesn't apply to MBT which must be treated as a special case? -
Look bud. I've already revealed my sources. They were my friends who got posted to armor when we were serving our bloody sentence.Originally posted by moca:When you say "we" I suppose you mean the SAF. And who are we (not leaders in SAF) to say that SAF will or will not?
So maybe the C-130 theory is out. But there are still a big number of other reasons for a 3m limit like someone mentioned our bridging equipment, ships, or even our wheeled trailer tank transporters.
But then again, we do not know in what context this 3m/30ton specification is for.
As there is very clear evidence we already have the Centurion, and someone reminded us of our M-60 CEV and AVLB, we do, in effect, have vehicles that do not comply to this 3m/30ton specification. Perhaps this spec doesn't apply to MBT which must be treated as a special case?
Formerly from CE, I can TELL you. WE CAN MOVE A M-60 CEV on our pontoon bridge. We used to have pictures of prev exercises hanging around our HQ, and there is plenty of pics with our bridges with CEVs on it.
Still, like i said, thats worst case scenario. We don't really need to move CEV size vehicles on pontoons. There are other means available.
Width and weight, why? Too wide for what? Too heavy for what?
I can give u a number of plausible reasons for width.
1. Staying on the small roadways up north.
2. Moving thru plantations with ease, being able to turn on a dime without banging into trees.
Weight.
1. Amount of weight and ground pressure exerted on the soil.
2. Bridges up north some of them being unsafe for vehicles any heavier.
3. Easier to RECOVER should it break down in unfavorable terrain features that LITTER peninsular malaysia. -
shotgun, i think moca may not be referring to your comments but someone else instead.. but just in case moca is referring to you, i can only add that if SAF has tinker about the possibility of air-lifting armour unit, air-strips to land the transport will defintely be required. either drop in a Bn of commandos to capture it, modify the NS highway for emergency runway or have 1 constructed in place. the cost in terms of resources is prob too high as compared to making do with just grounded armour units. as suggested in Tim Huxley's book, we are expected to hold the ground of about 40km, maybe slightly more with the introduction of astros. we are not looking at an AO of 100 miles x 100 miles where air-lifting armour will be important.
but what you say is absolutely right, the CEV is always used for bridge testing, tonnes of pictures with CEV on our bridges are around, i have a few personnal ones too. its probably the heaviest vehicle in our offical inventory but if it can pass, so do other vehicles.
i don't think the 3m, 30 tonnes restriction is offically supported anywhere. we have vehicles that exceed 3m (VLB @ 4.5m width), or wheeled 30 tonnes (comet @ MLC42). Even transporters doon't pose a problem for the width, D8 plant is often transported on a low-bed, the width of the blade is more than 3m wide, need escort when travelling on public road..
i don't think this info is public domain & i also cannot remember it anyway, the width of the MSER and ASER is definitely enough to support the movement of MBT class size of vehicles.. -
Moca...i never said unsuitable, you did...i said not as ideal...pls read carefully...thanksOriginally posted by tankee1981:The tropical terrain in the SEA is indeed not as ideal for tank warfare as comapred to open plains and deserts but don't worry we have our ways to avoid and counter this muddy problem.
-
Yeah, i get what u mean. But to the best of available common knowledge, this capability is still experimental. Perhaps soon enough, we'd have an operational unit with such a purpose in mind, but as of now, I haven't heard much of it.Originally posted by khaiseng:shotgun, i think moca may not be referring to your comments but someone else instead.. but just in case moca is referring to you, i can only add that if SAF has tinker about the possibility of air-lifting armour unit, air-strips to land the transport will defintely be required. either drop in a Bn of commandos to capture it, modify the NS highway for emergency runway or have 1 constructed in place. the cost in terms of resources is prob too high as compared to making do with just grounded armour units. as suggested in Tim Huxley's book, we are expected to hold the ground of about 40km, maybe slightly more with the introduction of astros. we are not looking at an AO of 100 miles x 100 miles where air-lifting armour will be important.
but what you say is absolutely right, the CEV is always used for bridge testing, tonnes of pictures with CEV on our bridges are around, i have a few personnal ones too. its probably the heaviest vehicle in our offical inventory but if it can pass, so do other vehicles.
i don't think the 3m, 30 tonnes restriction is offically supported anywhere. we have vehicles that exceed 3m (VLB @ 4.5m width), or wheeled 30 tonnes (comet @ MLC42). Even transporters doon't pose a problem for the width, D8 plant is often transported on a low-bed, the width of the blade is more than 3m wide, need escort when travelling on public road..
i don't think this info is public domain & i also cannot remember it anyway, the width of the MSER and ASER is definitely enough to support the movement of MBT class size of vehicles..
In anycase, officially, the capability to capture and air lift armored vehicle is still "not there" hence, it would not be logical to deduce that the 3m by 30ton restriction is for such a purpose.
Also, since most of our bridges are capable of handling the CEV, a much larger vehicle. Its not likely that the "3m by 30ton" restriction is due to our bridges. If the Air and Sea factor ruled out, there only remains the Land factor.
What we know:
Majority of our armored vehicles, M113 ULtra, OWs, Bx 40/50, 25mms fall (the vehicles we have in large numbers) are in this category. Of course, AFVs of this type mostly fall into this width weight cat.
And also, the BX based AVLBs, still actually have the same track width as the usual BX.
Yes, i agree that we have vehicles that are outside this 3m by 30ton Class of combat vehicles. Though I would not consider the comet "combat." It is noted that those vehicles that form the "tip of the spear" of the SAF Armor, generally do reside in that category. In anycase, the CEV, Comet etc, are not SAF Armor's equipment. They are under the Combat Engineers. CEV under Armored Engineers.
With the exception of the "Big Brothers", I think there are few vehicles in SAF Armor that exceed that category. -
Look bud. I can say something sarcastic here but how about just:Originally posted by Shotgun:Look bud. I've already revealed my sources. They were my friends who got posted to armor when we were serving our bloody sentence.
"Can we please just have a civil discussion?"
We are all grown ups here whom have all served our "bloody sentence".
And I'd kinda lost the point on waht you're saying so I shall just sit this one out for a bit. -
Hi Moca and shotgun, everyone just giving his 2 cents worth.. lets keep things cool and have a healthy discussion.
i guess bottom line is that unless someone else propose an alternative, we certainly have no problems operating a MBT, just a matter of politcs and strategy. -
Maybe we r making sure we can make use of this:
WW2:Germany found that by spearheading assaults with panzer regiments to bust through an opponents line, they could cut supply lines, quickly take control of key bridges, cities, etc., and create sheer havoc behind an enemies front line. Germany used the Ardennes forest in the Battle of France to hide nearly all of their panzer divisions, a forest the French thought was unpassable to armored forces. Germany proved France wrong, and with a feint to the north, drawing French and British troops that way, Germany countered to the south, through the Ardennes with a quick thrust behind and into the back of those same troops. German panzer divisions quickly took key bridges and quickly cut supply lines. Most French forces were so surprised to see the Germans moving so quickly that they surrendered rather than fight. The French army was not a match for the German Army because of misallocation of armor, and the fact that they fell right into Germanys hands by overstretching their forces by putting reserves into one massive move to the north. The French had even built up a massive defensive structure called the Maginot Line, just south of the Ardennes. This structure held even more men who could have been used to defend the 2 attacks further north, but Germany had plans for these men, and had the 1st Army attack the Maginot Line with a small force to pin these men down and keep them from acting as reserves. The French Army was cut to pieces, and the British Expeditionary Force could only retreat to Dunkirk
If your armour too big n heavy don't think this could be done
The rest of the vehicles not so restricted cos Armour's the spearhead right? -
Sure. My apologies if it sounded harsh.Originally posted by moca:Look bud. I can say something sarcastic here but how about just:
"Can we please just have a civil discussion?"
We are all grown ups here whom have all served our "bloody sentence".
And I'd kinda lost the point on waht you're saying so I shall just sit this one out for a bit.
To sum up what I basically pointed out.
-AFVs in SAF Armor are the ones largely under 3m and 30 tons.
-CEVs, AVLBs, etc are not under SAF Armor.
-CE Bridging assets can handle adequately vehicles above 3m and 30 tons. So the general trend of 3m n 30 ton for AFVs in Armor is not due to limitations of our bridging capabilities.
-Air Lifting A-Veh is still not an official capability nor was it something we had since we had the M113s and SM-1s. Hence, it was probably not a restriction we imposed concerning the fitting of the vehicles into the C-130 bay.
-As someone noted, our Navy landing craft is not known to carry any veh heavier than 18 ton? (THis one i'm not sure)
On the other hand, what I do know is
-3m width can fit thru plantation tree planting distances comfortable, and retain relatively high degree of agility. As with shorter barrels. (told to me by my mates in armor)
-30 ton weight is also comfortable handling for the firmer plantation soils. No doubt plantation soil can also support MBT operation, just that the MBT would not be as mobile there.
-Some bridges up north may not be safely constructed to allow anything heavier than 30 ton possibly.
-And of course, the lighter the vehicle, the less intensive the recovery job. Example, a tank 60 ton ++ getting stuck in a deep ditch would require at least another 60+ ton recovery vehicle. Question is, is the terrain favorable for another heavy duty recovery vehicle to do its job? -
Very well put.Originally posted by Shotgun:-And of course, the lighter the vehicle, the less intensive the recovery job. Example, a tank 60 ton ++ getting stuck in a deep ditch would require at least another 60+ ton recovery vehicle. Question is, is the terrain favorable for another heavy duty recovery vehicle to do its job?
A plantation does have tracks wide enough to take a convoy including MBTs, though. These tracks facilitated the huge trucks that used to go in and out of plantations to collect the raw rubber.
But I am completely in ageement that an MBT would be a bull in a china shop inside a plantation.
But there are some MBTs smaller than the M1A1 like the Osorio, or even the CV90120 - which is not even an MBT with regards to the weight and size - which many people favour.
The Scorpion was the perfect jungle tank IMO, even smaller and lighter than the AMX13 and has a modern 90mm gun. But the armour must also be rubbish by today's standards as anyone with even a RPG-2 will be able to knock it out.
UK has already phased out the Scorpion, I think.
But talk about small....
There's tiny little German tank called the Wiesel. Cute litte bugger looks like a over-indulgent birthday present for a six-year-old.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/europe/Allemagne/vehicules_legers/Wiesel1/Wiesel1_Tow/Wiesel_TOW_Germany_Mullheim_01.jpg
This little tank can weave in and out of trees and is the perfect support for a mobile column, being able to swarm over like bees to counter attack an ambush of the main column etc
An MBT should preferably NOT be fighting inside the plantation as it would be at best, nothing more than a mobile pill box with limited fields of fire.
But in the end, just generally speaking, like all weapon platforms, there is a time and situation where the MBT is irreplaceable, and there's also a time and place where it is a liability.
Just because plantations are a bad place for MBT, may not mean MBT are unsuitable for SG & MY. It may just need a tweak in the strategy of how, where and when you deploy them. (I don't pretend to know.)
You can't fire howizers inside the jungle, for example, but that doesn't mean you don't operate howitzers. You may just need to find a clearing or chop a few trees down (which is how combat engineers like Shotgun earn their pay). -
I believe that most people are aware that its not impossible to operate MBTs in SG or MY. As I've mentioned earlier, its a matter of using the right tool at the right place. That is why I believe there has been extensive survey done to find out what kinda soil, terrain features are prevalent in whichever part of operations area.
With proper OPs, and defence lay out, the MBT can form a defensive strong point in any urban area. The MBT's main gun, is also capable of engaging fortifications, bunkers and "garrisonned" buildings in urban warfare.
Then again, I'm not expert in employing MBTs. I just know that it can be done, in the right places. -
Those which directly supporting armoured column is the armoured engineer and under them for bridging are M60AVLB which is class 60, the newer stuff AMX-13SM1 class 30 AVLB and Bionix class 30 AVLB.
AMX-13SM1 class 30 AVLB and Bionix class 30 AVLB are of locally modified or produced, these bridge have limited width , just slightly wider than the track width of the vehicles that carry it, which is 3.2m
Please refer to these pix:
http://www.one35th.com/bionix/avlb_gallery.htm
and spec:
http://www.one35th.com/bionix/avlb_spec.htm
I dun have the spec of the bridge of AMX-13SM1 , but you could see from the pix below , it is slghtly wider than the track width of SM1.
So, that is why I said the width 3m and weight of 30 tons standard could be the be due to bridging equipment, and yes we do have larger AVLB but we only have 12 and now they are now supplemented by these smaller local modified and produced AVLBs.
Eventhough these AVLBs are b4 my time, therefore I cannot be sure, but I will bet they are the reasons for that standard. -
Look at the "width" if the gun turret traverse to the side,, that will be problem if you have MBT with a large caibre gun in a rubber plantation.
